Police Official Calls Freedom of Information Requester a Git
Discussion
Well Ms Hatswell must be hiding under her desk! Careful With That Email Eugene! 
From Pocketgpsworld.com...
Police Official Calls Freedom of Information Requester a Git. 30 Sep
A police official has called a man who made a Freedom of Information request about mobile speed cameras "a git" in an email.
Mr Lake asked whether operators of mobile speed cameras operators need the written authority of the Chief Constable.
A series of e-mails went back and forth between Natalie Hatswell, communications manager for the Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Unit and Gregory Lake. Mr Lake received five replies to his correspondence, but claimed that they didn't sufficiently answer his question.
On the last email on the subject, Ms Hatswell mistakenly left what was supposed be an internal message to colleagues: "Isn't he a git!!" in the final draft of what she sent to Mr Lake.
Mr Lake replied: "Who is the 'git' you refer to? Is it customary for Freedom of Information officers to call members of the public names so openly?"
He demanded: "An explanation please and an apology or, given the fact you cannot retract the evidence that is now on a public forum for the world to witness, I will take the matter further."
Ms Hatswell has since apologised.
From Pocketgpsworld.com...
Police Official Calls Freedom of Information Requester a Git. 30 Sep
A police official has called a man who made a Freedom of Information request about mobile speed cameras "a git" in an email.
Mr Lake asked whether operators of mobile speed cameras operators need the written authority of the Chief Constable.
A series of e-mails went back and forth between Natalie Hatswell, communications manager for the Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Unit and Gregory Lake. Mr Lake received five replies to his correspondence, but claimed that they didn't sufficiently answer his question.
On the last email on the subject, Ms Hatswell mistakenly left what was supposed be an internal message to colleagues: "Isn't he a git!!" in the final draft of what she sent to Mr Lake.
Mr Lake replied: "Who is the 'git' you refer to? Is it customary for Freedom of Information officers to call members of the public names so openly?"
He demanded: "An explanation please and an apology or, given the fact you cannot retract the evidence that is now on a public forum for the world to witness, I will take the matter further."
Ms Hatswell has since apologised.
I've at times had to deal with these requests through my role, sometimes you can tell the people requesting the info are proper gits. They're quite often vexatious and out to be a hindrance. On the flip side a lot of the requests are just mundane. Without seeing the actual request I'm not surprised the person in question sometimes feels the requester is a git. It's just shabby that they committed their feelings to a non-verbal communication.
93DW said:
Sounds like somebody from the professionally offended brigade. I know its not proffesional from the officer but really? Demanding an apology for being called a git?
I'm far from being a professional offence-taker and am in fact (I think) a pretty liberal chap, but I think when someone sends you a copy of a conversation they've had with another person in which they insult you behind your back, an apology is not only appropriate but should be offered without the need for a prompt from the person insulted. It's just the right thing to doSHutchinson said:
I've at times had to deal with these requests through my role, sometimes you can tell the people requesting the info are proper gits. They're quite often vexatious and out to be a hindrance. On the flip side a lot of the requests are just mundane. Without seeing the actual request I'm not surprised the person in question sometimes feels the requester is a git. It's just shabby that they committed their feelings to a non-verbal communication.
Dealing with some walt types is to be expected. Why take it personally.Dealing with FOI or even DPA requests is nothing personal. Look at the request, use appropriate process to decide if disclosure is allowed, respond appropriately. If you get more requests from the same person then deal with them in the same way. If you think they are submitting too many requests despite valid reasons for not providing what they ask then escalate it up the food chain..... not difficult.
Some people may have valid reasons for requesting information, others may not. It isn't personal, so why make it personal?
amancalledrob said:
I'm far from being a professional offence-taker and am in fact (I think) a pretty liberal chap, but I think when someone sends you a copy of a conversation they've had with another person in which they insult you behind your back, an apology is not only appropriate but should be offered without the need for a prompt from the person insulted. It's just the right thing to do
Perhaps, Sometimes a real world view works better though i'm aware people probably call me things behind my back however unless its something that's not true it doesn't bother me especially if its the opinion of somebody sat behind a computer who I shall more than likely never meet. How many times have you got off the phone with someone at work and said "What a w
ker!" SHutchinson said:
Without seeing the actual request I'm not surprised the person in question sometimes feels the requester is a git.
Fill your boots. 
- https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/civilian_sp...It would appear that calling the questioner a git is not the only communication issue Ms Hatswell has.
Her very first response was to send him an answer to somebody else's questions.
SHutchinson said:
It's just shabby that they committed their feelings to a non-verbal communication.
Rule 1. Never put anything about somebody in an e-mail that you wouldn't dare say face-to-face to him/her.Rule 2. Never forget Rule 1.
Red Devil said:
SHutchinson said:
Without seeing the actual request I'm not surprised the person in question sometimes feels the requester is a git.
Fill your boots. - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/civilian_sp...It would appear that calling the questioner a git is not the only communication issue Ms Hatswell has.
Her very first response was to send him an answer to somebody else's questions.
SHutchinson said:
It's just shabby that they committed their feelings to a non-verbal communication.
Rule 1. Never put anything about somebody in an e-mail that you wouldn't dare say face-to-face to him/her.Rule 2. Never forget Rule 1.
J
Jasandjules said:
Should we not support people who seek to reduce reliance upon speed cameras? That way when someone actually hits you the police might do more than put two ladies in a nearby road with a speed cam.....
Exactly. I'd fully support sending in loads of requests just to clog up their system, paying fines in pennies. That sort of thing. Anything that makes their life and job more difficult. Also driving a bulldozer through their office and over every one of their speed cameras but that may be taking it a bit too far.Red Devil said:
Rule 1. Never put anything about somebody in an e-mail that you wouldn't dare say face-to-face to him/her.
Rule 2. Never forget Rule 1.
Indeed Rule 2. Never forget Rule 1.
Have taken the liberty to add a third "rule"...Rule 1. Never put anything about somebody in an e-mail that you wouldn't dare say face-to-face to him/her.
Rule 2. Never forget Rule 1.
Rule 3. Always remember that ANYTHING you write (or is posted about you) digitally is likely to exist and be retrievable way past your lifetime.
AH33 said:
...driving a bulldozer through their office and over every one of their speed cameras but that may be taking it a bit too far.
Seems perfectly acceptable to me93DW said:
...how many times have you got off the phone with someone at work and said "What a wker!"
At least five times this week ker!" 
I'd apologise unreservedly to every one of them if somehow they caught me thoughButter Face said:
Gregory Lake sounds like a git.
I can think of some even more choice words to describe how I view the requester's behaviour, but in light of the vexatious nature of the individual I shall refrain from posting those in full and leave it to say directly to their face should I ever be unfortunate enough to come into contact with them.I do worry for their health if they are that exercised over a comment like that.
It is further noted that the requester waited until a Saturday to send their riposte to the inadvertently forwarded comment, suggesting that this was intentional, so as to cause the maximum possible delay in response time to the benefit of the show when posted up on the website.
It would also appear that the lady came in on their holiday to offer the apology.
That the requester saw fit to take matters further only further highlights their highly questionable motivation and alludes to deep seated character flaws if that exchange is representative of the same.
It would also appear that the lady came in on their holiday to offer the apology.
That the requester saw fit to take matters further only further highlights their highly questionable motivation and alludes to deep seated character flaws if that exchange is representative of the same.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff